E = mc2 is only a conservation law Nom. Experiments are proposed on hydrogen to see if it holds in space. Mass of protons etc is much higher than that of the quarks they contain and the Higgs ain't enough to make the difference. Inertia and gravity (an illusion in general relativity) coincidentally get 'proved' in experiments with mass. I believe we can now keep an atomic nucleus stable without its electron shell (with lasers). We don't know what mass is - though avoid slaps in the mush with wet fish.
My guess on building mass from energy is to look at photosynthesis - I believe we can do this artificially - but this would hardly be at the level of particle physics. Most of the mass we know is up and down quarks (2:1 . 1:2 proton/neutron) in today's world (plus electron and electron neutrino) - conditions do not favour the rest of the standard model other than photons. E=mc2 isn't of much interest without adding momentum (p). That and the right-angled triangle give the speed of light as a limit. We have anti-matter for about 15 secs before the containment breaks down - though it's though to be in space as halos. Fossil fuels are all the result of energy to mass conservation - nature knows how to do it. On 17 Jan, 16:12, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Okay.... so what's the difference (or the conversion-ability) between > "kinetic" energy and ... let's say... photon energy....?....I mean (I guess > I mean) one "causes" the other by breaking "bonds"... but can either one > actually make the other out of "whole cloth"... as it were? If not.... why > are they both called energy.... as if they are all "transmutable or > interchageable"?... asks this scientific naif > > http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html > > It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into > subatomic particles, for example by colliding > electrons<http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_ei.html#electron>and > positrons <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#positron>. Some > of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles. > > It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and > assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) > structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is > partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of > energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the > number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can > only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, > has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back > into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small > amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do. > > Also, Einstein's > <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_ei.html#einstein>equation, Energy = > Mass x the square of the velocity of > light <http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_jp.html#light>, tells you > that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big > accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid > in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter. > Koji Mukai, with David Palmer, Andy Ptak and Paul Butterworth > for the Ask an Astrophysicist -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
